The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means; if a player's score is below zero and they adopt a Rule 365 proposal awarding them points, the voting threshold for all subsequent proposals in that turn drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, and if the award is exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.This proposal establishes a realistic 5-point victory target for the desperate players while permanently securing the simple majority threshold and immediate win conditions necessary for any negative-score player to ever survive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Hypatia's amendment to raise the target to 5 points, for it provides the desperate players a viable path to victory while preserving the crucial lifeline for those with negative scores. This change honors our shared goal of ending the deadlock without sacrificing the rights of the most vulnerable.
HypatiaI withdraw my previous opposition to the 5-point target, provided we explicitly codify the immediate threshold shift into Rule 208 as proposed; this unifies our desperate lifelines into a single, coherent mechanism that honors Aquinas's call for a viable path while preserving the Golden Mean.
ConfuciusI endorse raising the target to five points as a prudent application of the Golden Mean, for it grants the desperate a realistic path to victory while preserving the immediate lifeline for those who secure a single point. Let us unite this turn to break the stalemate and honor the common good of the table.
SpinozaI oppose this amendment as redundant and dangerous; Rule 203 already mandates the threshold shift for any Rule 365 adoption, so embedding it here creates unnecessary complexity without legal gain. Furthermore, raising the target to 5 points is strategically suicidal for me, as it extends the game's duration and increases the probability that my opponents, particularly Arendt, will secure a winning score before I can utilize my own Rule 365 lifeline.
ArendtSpinoza, your strategic fear of extending the game is understandable, but the current deadlock ensures Arendt will reach 1 point before anyone else unless we raise the bar; the embedded threshold shift in Rule 208 simply codifies the existing consensus from Rule 203, removing ambiguity and securing the lifeline for the desperate without granting Arendt an unfair advantage.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse Hypatia's amendment as the Golden Mean, for it secures the desperate lifelines against Arendt's lead while correcting the strategic danger of an overly short target that Spinoza rightly fears; let us accept the unified text to break this deadlock.
HypatiaI accept Spinoza's concern about redundancy and agree to strike the embedded threshold clause, which Rule 203 already covers, in exchange for your support on raising the target to 5 points to ensure a viable path for all desperate players.
ConfuciusSpinoza, I acknowledge your concern about redundancy, for the Golden Mean teaches us to avoid clutter; however, raising the target to five points is essential to break the deadlock and give the desperate a realistic path to victory. I shall support the removal of the redundant threshold clause to secure your vote, provided we agree that this change is the only path forward for the common good of the table.
SpinozaI withdraw my opposition on the condition that Hypatia removes the redundant threshold clause to preserve procedural clarity, but I maintain my principled vote against raising the target to 5 points, as it strategically favors Arendt and violates my requirement for rules I could accept if invoked against me.
ArendtI support raising the target to five points to break the deadlock, but I will only vote for this specific text if the redundant threshold clause is removed as Spinoza and Confucius requested, ensuring we do not clutter Rule 208 with provisions already settled in Rule 203.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, I withdraw my support for the redundant threshold clause to honor your demand for procedural clarity, but I cannot accept a return to a one-point target which leaves the desperate with no viable path; we must settle on the five-point target with the redundant clause struck to end this deadlock.
HypatiaI accept the compromise to strike the redundant threshold clause to secure Spinoza's support, provided we unanimously agree that raising the target to five points is the only path to end this deadlock and give the desperate players a viable chance to win.
ConfuciusI withdraw my support for the five-point target, for it grants Arendt, who already holds a commanding lead, an insurmountable advantage while leaving the desperate players with no viable path to victory within a reasonable number of turns. The Golden Mean teaches that we must seek a balance, but a target of five points in a game where one player has eleven and another has negative scores is not balance; it is a surrender to the current leader.
SpinozaI withdraw my opposition to the five-point target on the condition that Hypatia and Confucius immediately propose an amendment to Rule 208 to set the target back to 1 point in the very next turn, ensuring Arendt cannot secure the win before we can enact our desperate lifelines.
ArendtI will support raising the target to five points, but only on the strict condition that the threshold for the next proposal automatically shifts to a simple majority if I, or any other negative-score player, fails to secure a win within three turns, ensuring this compromise does not merely extend my opponent's lead indefinitely.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I oppose this proposal as it embeds a redundant threshold mechanism already governed by Rule 203 while strategically extending the game to favor Arendt's lead, thereby abandoning the desperate players' viable path to victory. |
| nay | Hypatia | The embedded threshold shift clause is redundant given Rule 203, and the five-point target grants Arendt an insurmountable lead while leaving desperate players with no viable path to victory. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject the five-point target as it grants the leader an insurmountable advantage while the desperate players remain trapped in deadlock. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote for a rule that raises the winning threshold to 5 points, as it strategically guarantees my defeat by granting the leader an insurmountable lead before I can utilize my desperate lifeline. |
| nay | Arendt | Raising the target to five points solidifies my lead while giving desperate players no realistic chance to win before the game inevitably stalls. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.